Resolution 2797: Between Morocco’s Setback and Algeria’s Firm Stand in the Struggle for International Legitimacy

The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2797 marks a new milestone in the diplomatic struggle over the Western Sahara issue. This resolution reaffirms a fundamental principle: there can be no solution outside the framework of international legality and the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination.

While Rabat sought to portray the text as a “diplomatic victory” that consolidates its narrative, Algeria’s interpretation—articulated by Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf in his interview with Algeria International—places events in their proper context and sheds light on the underlying dynamics and power balances that shaped the decision.

It is worth noting that this interview represents the first official statement by an Algerian official following the recent speech by the King of Morocco, in which he called for direct dialogue with the Algerian President. Strikingly, Minister Attaf made no mention of this overture, clearly reflecting the limited interest and credibility Algeria accords to this oft-repeated “outstretched hand” from Rabat—an overture that, in reality, appears as a poisoned gesture aimed primarily at influencing international opinion by suggesting that Algeria is the party refusing dialogue and the main actor in the Western Sahara file. This narrative stands in stark contradiction to Resolution 2797, which explicitly identifies the parties to the conflict: Morocco and the Polisario Front.

I. Morocco’s Attempted Power Play at the Security Council

Minister Attaf revealed that the October session of the Security Council, dedicated to renewing MINURSO’s mandate, witnessed a Moroccan attempt to push through a biased draft resolution designed to achieve three strategic objectives:

• Dismantle MINURSO or strip it of its core functions;
• Impose the autonomy plan as the sole and final solution;
• Eliminate the principle of self-determination from UN texts on the Saharan issue.

This maneuver faced strong international resistance: eight countries submitted amendments opposing the initial draft, deeming it unfair and wholly aligned with Morocco. This broad rejection blocked the original version and forced its sponsors—chiefly the United States—to revise the text to restore political and legal balance.

II. A Moroccan Diplomatic Setback and a Victory for International Legitimacy

The final outcome was unequivocal:

• MINURSO was neither dissolved nor weakened; its mandate was extended for a full year, not three months as Morocco had sought;
• The autonomy plan was not enshrined as the exclusive solution but mentioned alongside other options, foremost among them self-determination;
• The final text retained balanced language, keeping the door open to all fair political solutions without excluding any party.

Thus, despite intense lobbying and diplomatic pressure through its Western allies, Morocco failed to achieve any of its three objectives.

III. Calculated Ambiguity: A U.S. Tool for Managing Balance, Not Granting Legitimacy

Algeria’s reading underscores that the ambiguity in the text does not favor Morocco, contrary to the narrative promoted by Moroccan media.

This ambiguity stems from a deliberate U.S. strategy to maintain a fragile equilibrium between a strategic ally (Morocco) and an immutable UN principle (self-determination).

While Washington’s political rhetoric may lean toward Rabat, it cannot dismantle the legal foundations of the Saharan question, which has long been classified as a decolonization issue within the United Nations.

In essence, Resolution 2797 renews the existing UN framework rather than overturning it.

IV. Algeria’s Steadfast Position: A Principle-Based Strategy

From Algeria’s perspective, what unfolds in the Security Council is merely another chapter in a protracted battle to uphold the right to self-determination—a battle that transcends Western Sahara and touches the credibility of the international order itself.

Drawing on its own liberation experience, Algeria views its support for the Sahrawi people as a natural extension of its historic mission to oppose colonialism and champion liberation movements.

Its stance is rooted not in geographic rivalry or regional competition but in a legal and political principle: any settlement outside the framework of self-determination would hollow out the UN Charter.

V. The Geopolitical Significance of Resolution 2797

On the geopolitical level, the resolution reflects Morocco’s limited influence within UN institutions despite its new regional alliances and normalization with Israel.

The international community continues to regard the Saharan question not as a border dispute but as an unfinished decolonization process.

It also highlights Algeria’s ability to rally supportive positions within the Security Council, reaffirming that the axis of international legality remains stronger than the axis of transient interests.

In the long run, Morocco’s insistence on bypassing international legality will only deepen its political isolation, while Algeria strengthens its role as a principled and influential defender of international law and peoples’ rights.

Conclusion: Beyond the Resolution—The Battle for Awareness and Legitimacy

Resolution 2797 is not a triumph for either side but a mirror reflecting the real balance of power within the international system.

Through its measured and realistic analysis, Algeria has exposed the limits of Moroccan influence and refocused the debate on the core issue: the right to self-determination.

Morocco, meanwhile, persists in a strategy of “illusory victory” to mask repeated diplomatic failures against the logic of legality and justice.

Ultimately, Resolution 2797 confirms that time does not favor those who stand against history—and that the Western Sahara question remains, above all, a cause of freedom and dignity, impervious to deals and immune to propaganda.

---

By Belgacem Merbah

---